Yes, Gay Men Should Be Ordained

One major fallout of the current crisis of leadership in the Catholic Church is the scapegoating of homosexual priests and seminarians. One bishop was quoted as saying that his “unscientific conclusion is that most sexual abuse by priests is against adolescent boys and therefore is rooted in societal acceptance of homosexuality.” He went on to draw the bizarre conclusion that there are some fields that should not be open to certain people: “I don’t think drug addicts should be pharmacists, I don’t think alcoholics should be bartenders, I don’t think kleptomaniacs should be bank tellers and I don’t think homosexuals should be priests.” Obviously he believes every homosexual person is a sex addict and, if we barred them from the priesthood, the sex scandal would be quietly ended.

Other bishops do not go so far as to consider all homosexual men to be sex addicts; nevertheless, they bar them from the seminary and the priesthood. Their policy reflects the judgment provided in a report prepared by the theologian Germain Grisez: “Can men with a homosexual orientation become good candidates for ordination? There are reasons to doubt it. Sexuality profoundly shapes the lives of human persons, and a homosexual orientation, albeit less bizarre than the commonly recognized paraphilias, is a grave disorder. Homosexual men no doubt can be perfectly continent, but the charism of celibacy involves more; peaceful chastity and the sublimation of sexual energy into priestly service for the kingdom’s sake.”

Some critics of the acceptance of homosexual men into the priesthood, like Charles Wilson, head of the St. Joseph’s Foundation, a canon law organization in Texas, would like to see the church make the ban on homosexual seminarians more explicit in canon law, although he contends that if canon law is interpreted correctly it already prohibits homosexual seminarians.

In fact, one bishop has already publicly taken this position. He insists: “There is a difference between a heterosexual and homosexual candidate for the priesthood. A heterosexual candidate is taking on a good thing, becoming a priest, and giving up a good thing, the desire to have a family. A gay seminarian, even a chaste one, by his orientation is not a suitable candidate for the priesthood, even if he did not commit an act of [gay sex]. He is giving up what the church considers an abomination.”

Last March Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the official spokesperson for the Vatican, publicly linked pedophile priests with homosexuality and even went so far as to suggest that gay men could not be validly ordained. His statement in itself would not be of great concern, since Dr. Navarro-Valls is not in any sense part of the church’s magisterium. However, his remarks seem to take on an authoritative nature, because no bishop in the Vatican or elsewhere has publicly rejected those remarks. This can certainly leave the impression that he speaks with official support.

All of this focus on gay men in the priesthood and religious life, as a response to the recent sexual scandals, leaves many gay priests and brothers feeling very vulnerable and afraid. In a recent article one religious, Bro. Jack Talbot, a friar in the Capuchin Province of St. Joseph, quoted a friend: “It’s such a difficult journey just to be out; coming out in religious life requires another level of courage and conversion. With the Vatican’s recent attack on homosexuals in religious life, I fear that some parishioner will turn my orientation into something ugly and vile, and the next thing you know I will be reading about it in the local paper.”

All this must stop: the scapegoating of gay priests for the sex abuse crisis, the demand to reject homosexual persons for the priesthood and religious life, the unchallenged suggestion that the ordination of a gay man would be invalid. All these positions contribute to the sharp increase in the negative feelings that so many in the church and our society have toward homosexual persons.

The first step toward reversing these harsh judgments and negative feelings about gay priests and homosexual persons in general is to examine our own experience. Without being aware of it, untold numbers of people in the church have been blessed by the compassionate and healing ministry of gay priests and bishops. Ordinary common sense tells us that such ministry is of God. It is authentic and it is valid.

It might also be helpful to recall what the U.S. bishops wrote in their document Always Our Children. In speaking to parents who discover that their child is homosexual we asked, “How can you best express your love—itself a reflection of God’s unconditional love—for your child?” And then we urged:

Don’t break off contact; don’t reject your child.... Your child may need you and your family more than ever. He or she is still the same person. This child who has always been God’s gift to you may now be the cause of another gift: your family becoming more honest, respectful and supportive. Yes, your love can be tested by this reality, but it can also grow stronger through your struggle to respond lovingly.

Would it not be a blessing for parents who are struggling to accept and unconditionally love their homosexual child if the church were to accept gay priests and bishops openly and gratefully? And if the gift of a homosexual child can be the cause of another gift to the family, is it not even more likely that a homosexual priest could be the cause of such a gift to the parish community? A community that could accept this gift would grow in its ability to be honest, respectful and supportive.

We must also ask ourselves: do we really want to deprive the church of the valuable and blessed ministry that is already being provided by priests and religious who are gay or lesbian? Do we really wish to increase the pain and hurt that many of them have experienced throughout their lives? Do we really want to instigate a “witch hunt” to expel from the ministry gay priests, and, I might add, gay bishops?

As a bishop for over 30 years, I have worked with and come to know well many gay priests. They are healthy psychologically, and their committed ministry has been very effective. I am inspired by their love of God and of the people they serve so well and generously. I also know the struggle they now face as they see the bishops deal with the current crisis in the church.

A few letters that I have received recently show clearly how this present attack on homosexual persons is being experienced. One priest wrote:

I am a Roman Catholic priest in good standing, and celibate. I did not choose to be so, but in God’s infinite love and mercy I was created a gay man....

I have struggled with the knowledge of my sexuality. I have sought ways that my gifts and talents could be used fully for building the Kingdom of God. However, the fear of “witch hunts” continues to keep a part of me “in the closet.” How I long to be able to be “out” (in appropriate ways) and honest with the people I serve. I feel rejection by the people I try to serve in love, which causes me much pain. Sometimes I wonder if I should remain a priest....

I love the work I do. I live celibacy one day at a time, and I believe that I am a good priest. But I am also saddened that I am prevented from sharing those parts of who I am, the source of my compassion and that which energizes me.... I find unbearable that there is so much hate that continues to be fueled by those who claim to speak for our reconciling God.

I am a priest who is gay and celibate, and I have struggled all my life with the many issues associated with being born homosexual.

The Holy Spirit has obviously called many gays to the priesthood in the last few years. How do the bishops explain that? Do the bishops understand the hatred and opposition they are stirring up toward gay priests by their remarks? Do they see that, like opposition to minorities entering the priesthood years ago, their opposition to gays has no foundation in the teachings of Jesus? Bishop Gumbleton, you have encouraged gay priests to be open about their orientation. And I have been—only to be questioned now by parishioners as someone who has been ordained mistakenly. In all my years of sacraments, today was the first time a young couple in our parish asked me if the baptism of their baby would be valid—since they had heard from their parents that I was a homosexual.

It seems clear to me that these priests who have been totally faithful in following out their call to the priesthood deserve better of us. They must not be harassed and forced to live in fear and even suffer the violence that our society often directs against homosexual persons. Open support and love for gay priests and bishops would remove the sense of isolation and loneliness that many experience. This, together with the freedom to no longer “hide an important part of who I am,” would greatly lessen the number of those who otherwise might fail to be faithful to their celibate commitment.

And I insist that we must reject any suggestion that a gay priest or bishop cannot make the same celibate commitment a heterosexual man would make. It is a very inadequate understanding of celibacy to say that, as the bishop quoted above put it, a heterosexual priest is “giving up a good thing, the desire to have a family.” Celibacy is not simply a “giving up” of something. It is a positive way of loving—truly loving and being loved—but with the exclusion of sexual intimacy. Homosexual people can also love celibately and be a sign of God’s love just as genuinely as heterosexuals. In Always Our Children the U.S. bishops taught this clearly when they stated:

Everyone—the homosexual and the heterosexual person—is called to personal maturity and responsibility. With the help of God’s grace, everyone is called to practice the virtue of chastity in relationships. Chastity means integrating one’s thoughts, feelings and actions in the area of human sexuality in a way that values and respects one’s own dignity and that of others.

As a heterosexual person I have had to learn how to integrate my sexuality in a healthy way in all of my loving and mutual relationships. As a celibate person, I chose to do this without full sexual intimacy. And as Professor Grisez puts it, I arrive at a point of “peaceful chastity and the sublimation of sexual energy into priestly service for the kingdom’s sake.”

What is true of me as a celibate heterosexual person is just as true of the celibate homosexual person. The celibate homosexual priest or bishop brings the same charism to the service of the church as the heterosexual and can achieve the same “peaceful chastity and sublimation of sexual energy” for priestly service.

To say that the only thing a gay priest has to give up is “an abomination” manifests not only profound ignorance of what celibacy really is, but also is an insult to every homosexual person. Again, while celibacy represents a sacrifice, it is not simply a “giving up.” It is a unique way of loving, a charism given by God to persons who are homosexual or heterosexual. For this reason, it is absurd to suggest that the ordination of homosexual persons is invalid simply because of their sexual orientation. Obviously God has called many gay men to the priesthood and to the episcopate throughout the whole history of the church. Indeed, to declare all of these ordinations invalid would call into question the integrity of our whole sacramental system.

Another important reason to reject this attack against homosexual priests and bishops is that by identifying homosexuals as the cause, or an important part of the cause, of the current crisis we will fail to deal with the most basic cause of the scandalous situation. The radical cause was identified in 1971 in the psychological study of Catholic priests and bishops in the United States, authored by Dr. Eugene Kennedy. This study, of course, included homosexual and heterosexual priests. It indicated that a very large percentage of priests were seriously underdeveloped in terms of psychological maturity. This can result in a situation in which a person may be chronologically an adult but psychologically, affectively and emotionally still a teenager. Obviously such persons will tend toward inappropriate relationships. (A person who is psychologically an adolescent would feel more comfortable in relationships with younger people—with “teenagers” like himself.) And whether such a relationship is homosexual or heterosexual, it is wrong and can even be criminal.

But the problem confronting us is not a problem of homosexual priests among us. It is a problem of seriously underdeveloped priests. Yet this is a problem that can be overcome. Underdeveloped persons can be guided toward a fuller stage of maturity that will enable them to function in a psychologically healthy way. This is just as true of the underdeveloped homosexual person as it is of the underdeveloped heterosexual person. The important thing to work toward in the seminary and in religious formation is approving for ordination only those persons who have achieved an adequate degree of healthy psychological development. This must include healthy psychological development for both homosexual and heterosexual persons. Various psychological studies indicate homosexual persons are as healthy as anyone else. This can also be the case among priests and bishops.

There are a number of additional reasons why we must reject attacks upon homosexual priests and value their ministry in the church. For example, in his book, Spiritual Direction and the Gay Person, James Empereur, S.J., states: “Homosexuality is one of God’s most significant gifts to humanity. Through their testimony of suffering, God has chosen gays and lesbians to reveal something about God that heterosexuals do not.” Drawing on this insight, Bro. Jack Talbot points out that homosexuals “minister through the language of our pain, of our passion story. As we begin a new century, a recontextualized gospel of reconciliation is required, and healing medicine can be offered from the marginalized. Our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters can help our institution during this moment of suffering and humiliation.”

A further gift gay priests bring to our church is an exceptional ability and courage to proclaim the truth—something demanded by the prophetic nature of the priesthood. This can happen because of the often arduous “coming out” process homosexuals must undertake. Gay and lesbian people have had to identify, accept and affirm a truth about themselves that others have defamed. Coming to this awareness can be enormously difficult. In fact, it often had to be done without any encouragement or guideposts from others. They have often experienced opposition to knowing the truth about themselves, accepting their truth, and being willing even to share it with others. By living out this painful process, gay priests develop a deeply prophetic courage.

Gay priests also can offer a depth of compassion not always shared in a comparable way by heterosexual priests. Gay people have often been treated as outcasts by society, church and even family. Because of this experience, they can develop an awareness and sensitivity to those who are being excluded and included in various situations. Such a gift of compassion surely enriches one who is called to minister to others.

For all of these reasons, I urge our church leadership to rejoice in the blessings that can come to us by recognizing and supporting gay priests rather than shunning or rejecting them. Bro. Jack Talbot describes very well what needs to happen if we hope to achieve a good resolution of the current crisis in the church:

The church hierarchy needs to accept the help of her gay and lesbian members as ministers of healing, rather than making us scapegoats for a problem that we did nothing to create. Let us be advocates for the church during this crisis. Hear our stories.... For many, our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters may be unlikely teachers. Nevertheless, they can be God’s healing balm, God’s grace and peace at a time when the fragility of our society is painfully demonstrated in the crisis spots that are in the forefront of the news and in the frailty of the human heart.

See also James Martin, S.J., "The Church and the Homosexual Priest," America, Nov. 4, 2000.

The Most Rev. Thomas J. Gumbleton is an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Detroit, Mich. For his writings in America, click here. Click here for a sample of author's writings in America and for books by author at amazon.com. Link to "sample writings" is slow; link to amazon may list books by authors with similar names.

* Write a letter to the editor in response to this article. * View 9 letter(s) written in response to this article.

* Best Selling Catholic Books at Amazon.com * Catholic Authors at Amazon.com * Jesuit Authors at Amazon.com * Catholic Books from Catholic Publishers

Priests and other religious authorities are considered to be more godly, more holy, and living more an ideal life. So if homosexuals can fill these roles, they are "in like flynn". They have arrived. Their sexual depravity is now whitewashed, and they are not only accepted, equal - but better.

Well put!.... that is the whole point! - to corrupt the church. Why else would these perverts want to be priests? Love of God? Celibacy? herr.... it's called AN AGENDA!

So don't be surprised, every three or four days, we'll get the same messages... like clockwork :)

The Church does reach out to homosexuals through apostolate and through counseling and very importantly in providing a tremendous amount of AIDS relief which disproportionately infects homosexual men. "Courage" is a major apostolate to help homosexuals live lives of chastity and virtue. These are successful and popular apostolates. But I really don't expect people to know the truth. They are bought and sold a line that the Church is homophobic and does not seek homosexuals to bring them into the fold. This is done to seek to discredit the Church as bulwark of moral authority in a secular world.

True, but I don't think it's problematic in a different way than has been overcome before. Paul had the Greek and Roman "communities" of ideas to contend with. Jesus had an established Jewish "community" that had very different ideas about what their Messiah would be like. All of these communities had shared ideas and beliefs in which they put stock and that they mutually reinforced. Remember Paul in Ephesus as the mob shouted "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians" until the city clerk came out and told them to calm down (cf. Acts 19)? Talk about a hardcore "community" reinforcing a certain value. Then, of course, there are the communities of people around the world where missionaries have gone to share the message of the Kingdom. Every tribe and tongue is its own "community"; subscribing to and reinforcing their own ideas and customs. We even have "communities" on the high school campus. The terms "jock", "stoner", "hick" all come to mind from my H.S. days, and every one of those groups posessed and reinforced the "rightness" of a particular set of ideas and values.

The truth is that we are all involved in various "communities" at different levels of our lives, some official, some nebulous, but all influencing us in some way. In that sense, we do truly have a hmosexual "community", and I believe that the message of hope is for the members of that community no less than any other, and I also believe that The Word will successfully infiltrate that community just as it has so many others before. The community itself may not vanish, but individual members will be extracted from it, as if rescued from a burning house, and their lives transformed by the redeeming grace of Jesus Christ and, as that continues and those people keep going back to tell their friends, the whole community will be increasingly impacted by and drawn, one-by-one into the only community that will endure; the Kingdom of G-d.

That's not how it was originally established. While a celibate clergy is merely a discipline, it has a tremendous foundation in scripture, the life of Christ, the writings of Saint Paul, and the practice in the early Church. To say that the allowance for priests to marry was how it was originally established is ignore these things.

"Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it"(Matthew 19:12).

Your "about" page is naked.

Are you a Wisconsin person?

I understand that Abp Dolan has made one significant staff-change at the Sem. Perhaps you know about more than that. Care to elaborate?

Obviously, I don't like his "style." There is not enough time in the day for that one-on-one discreet suggesion stuff to correct liturgical wackiness in this Archdiocese, let alone the demi-heretical yapping one can hear from almost any pulpit on any given Sunday.

Our Archbishop has muttered not an "ahem" at the CINO who occupies the Governor's chair and who has relentlessly attacked the unborn, promoted fetal stem-cell research, and wears his "Catholic" label on his sleeve while doing so. And don't tell me that Doyle lives in the Madison Diocese--he collects plenty of money in Milwaukee.

I live with it. I'm a Catholic. He's the Archbishop, and at least I don't have to actively contradict him on matters as I did with his predecessor and the pack of liars which his predecessor ran with.

But I don't have to like his style, and I repeat: I don't.

Well, it is not so much what he has done but what has been done in response to the new direction the seminary will take under his guidance. Teachers who have tended to be a bit heterodox are actually asking for transfers or reducing their status to part-time or resigning. They read the writing on the wall. The seminary is also going to be primarily a place of formation for priests. It hasn't been that way, actually. Under Weakland, its role was split between being a place of priestly formation and lay formation. Also, the Archbishop is seeking to make the St. Francis Seminary a place of formation for other diocese. I believe Bishop Morlino is on the seminary board. He is a fantastic bishop, even if Madison is not a fantastic diocese.

In the seminary, he has made all priests who teach there to concelebrate daily mass because if the priests weren't the celebrants, they just wouldn't go. He has made them wear clerics while "on duty." This stuff didn't happen before Dolan got here. He is beginning to make changes. He is not the kind of bishop who cracks a whip. He doesn't make noise. But he does get results. He did the same thing with the North American College.

If you are in the Milwaukee Archdiocese, I recommend Old St. Anthony's on 9th in Mitchell. It's on the southside of Milwaukee. It is a fantastic parish. I can never say enough about how good it is.

Solemn liturgy
Kneeling to receive the eucharist
Sound teaching
Great choir
Courageous priests
Strong pro-life position
Faithful to the magesterium

Having been a member of the choir at St. A's for the last 6 years, I am well-acquainted with the parish.

However, we are about to leave. Their CCD program sucks(in one word...), the pastor has managed to mouth at least two distinct heresies in the last 8 weeks (we are actually keeping count...) and the time/distance factor is becoming a problem.

Happy to hear Abp Dolan requires clerics. At this time, he has NOT tossed the 'babes' out of the Seminary--and he put the Sem commission under the chairmanship of an individual who is abhorrent.

I am a Roman Catholic priest in good standing, and celibate. I did not choose to be so, but in God’s infinite love and mercy I was created a gay man...

UGH! This slimewad makes God the author of his own filthy sin, and glorifies God for the presence of his sin.

I would not even sit at a table with this monster, let alone take communion from him. Of course, were I Catholic, I would definitely be a Donatist...and wouldn't last long

While there are a lot of Catholics on this thread who might choose NOT to have dinner with this Bishop, if you take his word that he is celibate, then there's no 'sin.'

Being a homosexual is not sinful. ACTING on that disordered desire is sinful.

We all know that 'genetics' has nothing to do with this, although it's not clear exactly what causes may exist. There are family-background commonalities.

I happen to know quite a few gays, some active, a few who are heroically NOT active. Doesn't bother me to have dinner with any of them, assuming there are other factors which would make it a friendly occasion.

As I am in Madison, I don't get much of an opportunity to get down to St. A's. Would you mind telling me the heresies that you have heard there? I am just curious. Have you ever thought about becoming a member of the Tridentine community at St. Mary Help of Christians?

A final note: the state of catechesis in this country is sad. So many of the catechists aren't even catechized and are influenced by such a wrong-headed understanding of what the Church actually is.

While there are a lot of Catholics on this thread who might choose NOT to have dinner with this Bishop, if you take his word that he is celibate, then there's no 'sin.'

BUT WHY THE CHURCH?... Why do homosexuals, knowing what they are, want to DESPERATELY be inside the Church?... That is what makes me suspicious. There are thoundsands of professions out there... why does it have to be in the church, unless they have an agenda? If I were a drug-attic, or a prostitute, or a gigolo, or a pedofiliac - like Jacko the Wacho - [smile], I would just act on what I like to do, regardless. Why would I want the Church to change, in order to accommodate my dysfunctions? Doesn't makes sense... unless, again, you have a plan, an agenda.

And what is the agenda you asked? [smile], just like a cancer that invades a healthy body, to invade it, spread the decease, to destroy the moral values of the church, and kill it. And we know why the want to destroy it, don't we?

You succinctly reiterate my underlying points.

The homosexual community's positions -- ranging from defense to avid promotion -- form a basis of belief that is fundamentally hostile to Biblical Christian doctrine regarding what constitutes sin.
The right thing to do is extract individuals from that community.
There is little common ground to work from.

So, this is the layout of the battlefield -- spiritually and sociologically -- and the gospel of Jesus Christ will prevail in many of these individuals' lives. But only if the Church does not allow itself to take on the persona that the homosexual community is accusing it of having: homophobic, snide, callous, hostile, petty, hateful, hurtful, condescending -- all of these things can be levelled at the Church in an accusatory manner. BUT, the Church must rise above the accusations and, by direct loving action, demonstrate them to be false.

There will always be accusers, but if the Church -- and that means individual members within the Church -- acts in line with scripture, those accusers will be increasingly isolated, discredited, and ingored.

Being a homosexual is not sinful. ACTING on that disordered desire is sinful.

I think we could have a long circular argument about whether a celibate man can be a homosexual, but I agree with the thrust of your point. My point was not that the sin of homosexuality makes this man odious, but rather his claim that God actively creates sin and deviancy. He commits the sin of calling evil good, and compounds it both by blaspheming and by proclaiming it from a priestly pulpit. From a scriptural perspective this makes him a false teacher to be shunned, unless he repents. Both Paul and Jude speak authoritatively on this point.

If he were a homosexual outside of the church, or even one within the church who was not in a position of authority I would gladly eat dinner with him. Christ did no less for sinners.

Christ went among sinners to preach the kingdom of God to them, they were not considered men for appointment as representatives of God.

Priests do not become priests overnight. It takes years to be appointed to that position. If a man still considers himself homosexual it intimates that act is not far from his mind, whether or not it is due to recent acts or contemplation of acts is not clear and does not matter. He is still in a fleshly frame of mind and not a man to be put in charge of a flock.

The fact that this priest clearly does not consider homosexuality a sin is strange. It goes against what Corinthians 6:9 states; "People who do evil will never inherit the Kingdom of God" and goes on to list sodomites among the evils. It ends with saying that is what some of you were but you have been washed clean in the name of the Spirit of God. How can they be washed clean if they consider it not evil?

"The gift of a gay child..." "What a loss if we drive these gifted people from our midst"

Obviously does not coincide with the teachings of the early apostles who were taught by Christ.

"Homophobia" is a shibbolth that is leveled at anyone who says that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. Add the word "unnatural" and they really go through the roof. I personally have never thought that the sexual behavior of homosexuals is more reprehensible than the heterosexual libertinism of someone like Jack or Ted Kennedy. But gays just won't allow me to say even this. Even the iimplication that homosexuality is immoral is thought to be "homophobic." Our elites support this line of thinking because they have more or less taken up the Shirley McLain position that having sexwith a date is sort of like having dinner. Never mind the effect this sort of behavior has on real lives and on society as a whole.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.